Talking to the dead? The legal risks behind digital immortality

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has made it possible to seemingly resurrect the dead with so-called griefbots or deathbots that can communicate with loved ones after your death through your "digital twin". As with any application of new technology, the idea of such digital immortality raises many legal questions with few clear answers.

These systems can take the form of AI-generated voices, video avatars or text-based chatbots trained on a person’s data, either gathered by grieving friends and family or provided by the individual while still alive as a legacy, as explained in an article by The Conversation.

Such services are proliferating within the rapidly expanding digital afterlife industry, often referred to as grief tech.

When individuals create their own "digital twin" in advance, they typically sign up for a platform offering the feature and answer a series of questions to supply personal information. They may also record stories, memories and reflections in their own voice, and upload images or video to capture their appearance.

The AI software then generates a digital replica using that training data. After the person dies and the company is notified, loved ones may be able to interact with the digital twin.

In doing so, however, users are effectively delegating a degree of agency to a company to produce an AI simulation of them after death.

From the outset, this differs from attempts to “resurrect” someone who has already died and cannot consent. In this case, a living person is effectively licensing their own data to an AI afterlife provider before death, entering into a deliberate, contractual arrangement to create AI-generated material for posthumous use.

Even so, numerous unresolved issues remain, particularly around copyright and privacy. Questions arise over what happens if the technology becomes obsolete or the company shuts down, and whether the stored data could be sold or transferred.

Under copyright law, the notion of a person’s presence or identity is abstract, much like an idea, and therefore not protected in itself. Copyright applies only when material exists in a tangible form within recognised categories, such as written texts or photographs.

By contrast, typed responses or voice recordings supplied for training are tangible materials. This suggests that the data used to build a digital twin could be protected, while fully autonomous AI-generated outputs would be unlikely to carry their own copyright.

Moral rights in copyright safeguard a creator’s reputation against false attribution or derogatory treatment of their work. However, these protections would not extend to a digital twin, because moral rights attach to works created by human authors rather than AI-generated content.

Grief support or unhealthy attachment?

Using AI to create digital replicas of people—living or deceased—also raises ethical concerns. Even if the training data is locked after death, others will still interact with the system in the future. This creates the risk that the technology could misrepresent the deceased person’s values or beliefs.

Because AI systems are probabilistic and algorithm-driven, responses may gradually shift, leading to distortion over time. As a result, the deathbot could drift away from accurately reflecting the original individual.

AI-enabled griefbots and digital twins may help some people cope with loss, but current evidence is largely anecdotal and further research is needed. There is also a risk that bereaved relatives could develop an unhealthy dependence on the AI version of a loved one instead of processing grief in more constructive ways. If AI-generated interactions cause distress, it remains unclear how that harm should be addressed or who would be accountable.

The current legal landscape suggests that clearer regulation is needed as the grief tech sector expands. In the meantime, it is important for anyone considering a digital afterlife service to carefully review the terms and conditions before creating a digital legacy for themselves or someone else.

By Nazrin Sadigova